Pentagon Plane Parts Planted ?
Chris Sarns Sun, 08/16/2009 - 1:03pm
You be the judge.
These photos were taken minutes after the impact, before the fire trucks arrived.
Full size images at:
http://criticalthrash.com/terror/crashthumbnails.html
- Chris Sarns's blog
- Login to post comments
Not scorched or crushed
Interesting that.
The photos from Riskus.
Even when I go to his site and zoom in really close, I only see a minimal amount of debris near the base of the building, and it isn't even really identifiable as plane wreckage; it could be debris from anything.
Remember that not one piece of the plane has been positively identified as being from AA77.
But we do have a few photographs showing an extremely minimal amount of debris which does appear to be from a commercial aircraft. I have speculated elsewhere that the perps could have taken a small portion of an out-of-commission fuselage, or some preserved wreckage from an actual AA crash, and put it in the E ring, ready to be blown outside upon the explosion.
Or the parts (not the debris in Riskus' photos, but the actual parts with the AA colors, along with the engine parts inside) were planted by hand afterward.
Just so you know
I still think flyover is bonkers.
This is evidence of staged evidence and supports the fact that the light poles were staged.
EJECTED from Dumpster?
If Not Me? Who? If Not Now? When?
http://www.northtexas911truth.com/
A problem with this kind of
A problem with this kind of thing is that no matter how much you might *feel* like a piece of evidence might be "faked", unless you have evidence to prove that it is, you are just speculating.
Here are some IDs found at a crash site that had no political agenda at all and they don't have special features that would show they somehow survived such a crash --
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/object/article?f=/n/a/2009/07/15/internati...
The fallacy is to believe we can know exactly how all materials should behave in crash circumstances involving impacts at hundreds of mph and stuff going in all directions. It's not that different from believing we know what other people are saying when they are not speaking or are saying things like "this is bigger than me." The fact is, we don't know what they mean with certainty unless they tell us directly.
We can speculate, but the point is, that's speculation, not evidence.
There's no sin in speculation.
That's why this blog entry was created.
You can choose to not participate if it bothers you so much.
Photo dective needed
To prove the debris was staged, it must be shown that it is within the area of the photos in my first post.
Here is a larger version of the debris photo:
And a wider shot, debris in background.
Another angle, no debris.
To my knowledge there are no
To my knowledge there are no photos of debris outside that area; definitely no debris as far as the street.
I've always wondered about these two guys:
They seem to not be wearing gloves. Who are they, and why are they so quickly removing evidence of a crime with their bare hands?
EDIT: Or, rather than removing, could they be planting?
Right
A brilliant plan. To plant evidence in broad daylight on the most famous day in American history at the most surveilled building in the world. Next, they had to convince dozens of witnesses that they saw an airplane crash into the building.
C'mon, guys.
If they can get you to ask the wrong questions...
Then they never have to worry about the answers. And if they can get you to ask ridiculous questions, then they can make you look ridiculous in the process.
Do these people deserve to know how and why their loved ones were murdered? Do we deserve to know how and why 9/11 happened?
A question...
That is entirely based on speculation, that has no basis in fact whatsoever, that continues to push an argument that has never helped this cause, could be considered a "wrong question." And I believe the phrase is "dumb question." Not "wrong." And what happens when the "dumb question" is answered (by pointing out that the question is speculative, not based on any facts, not based on any evidence that indicates people planted the debris)? Should people keep asking it? Over and over again? No matter how ridiculous it makes us look?
I'll tell you what, if you can find me hard evidence that the debris was planted, I will apologize, and add that "fact" to my facts piece.
Do these people deserve to know how and why their loved ones were murdered? Do we deserve to know how and why 9/11 happened?
Everyone has theories...
About 9/11, and the reason we do is because those who should be able to answer our questions REFUSE to do so. However, that doesn't mean that EVERY theory is meant for public consumption. People who care about our credibility as a movement understand this.
Do these people deserve to know how and why their loved ones were murdered? Do we deserve to know how and why 9/11 happened?
My original post...
Was made sometime around 10:37, when the previous post was made. I just edited the sentence structure because it didn't make any sense. As for the 5 votes (and however many downvotes it has received), I must have said something the majority agrees with. To answer your question as to whether or not I "get extra votes or something," the answer would be no.
Do these people deserve to know how and why their loved ones were murdered? Do we deserve to know how and why 9/11 happened?
LOL - thanks for cracking me up, I needed it just now
As much as Jon posts here and as much as some folks like or don't like some of his opinions, he gets no special treatment at 911blogger.
No one gets extra votes for anything, not even for baking me a carrot cake on my birthday...
still laughing
Eleusus, I see that you've only been a member for less than 6 days, so please don't take my reply the wrong way, it's been quite a day already and it's not even 2pm here.
Welcome to 911blogger, Eleusus, how and when did you come to realize that there were problems with the government's 9/11 conspiracy theory?
Cheers
The truth shall set us free (not speculation).
Love is the only way forward (we are all brothers and sisters here).
Are you saying...
That not everybody likes me? :(
Edit: Here's an interesting report.
Do these people deserve to know how and why their loved ones were murdered? Do we deserve to know how and why 9/11 happened?
Jon
I like you, but I still think you should do a poll. You have a knack for polls ;-)
P.S. ... That link scared the shit out of me.
In no way...
Does that link "prove" that the DNA identified during 9/11, after 9/11, etc... is fake. It just means that theoretically, it could have been possible. It doesn't mean you should automatically discount everything. Again, not everyone in Gubmint is evil. Just certain select few.
Do these people deserve to know how and why their loved ones were murdered? Do we deserve to know how and why 9/11 happened?
I have a question too. Are
I have a question too. Are you saying that the witnesses that are on record (and the ones known by people who live here that are not on the record) of the north path of the airplane are speculating. That's insulting. There is a search for truth going on. Peace
911 Truth Ends 911 Wars
Unless you can show them
Unless you can show them being planted, they just look like light poles that got knocked down to the vast majority of Americans and most 911 activists and researchers.
The nanothermite findings supported the observations of bizarre violations of physics in the WTC destruction.
There is nothing like that here.
These are photos after the fact that show downed lamp posts that 99.999% of the world understands as being down because they were hit by AA77. Trying to convince people that these are "fake" by pointing at details of the poles and saying they are fake, is just not ever going to be strong evidence.
Get out of town
I am not pointing to the details of the poles!
How can you say those poles would just fall over after being hit by a plane going over 500mph and not leave any gouges in the grass?
I can't believe people would vote this into not showing.
You all are so fanatically married to the official flight path that you summarily reject any evidence to the contrary.
This is bleeping insane. Have a nice day.
Hey Chris, if you missed it before...
Check out this comparison of downed light pole bases. Look at the non-911 base on the left which were definitely not planned. The damage to the pole is asymmetrical. Then look at the 9/11 base on the right, and notice how it seems to have been cut uniformly, and seems to have sooty residue around the edge.
I've seen that
I don't find it as conclusive as the total lack of damage to the lawn. A pole that is blown down may break differently than one that is instantaneously snapped by a sudden impact of 90,000 pounds at 500mph.
A pole cannot even fall over without digging a hole. I think this is easier for people to understand. How could this pole have been broken as proposed and landed so neatly with on piece on top of the other without leaving so much as a divot?
I realize that people in abject denial will hand wave the obvious but anyone still possessed of their wits will see the problem.
No response = no denial?
This thread was to point out what appears to be planted evidence. I am not trying to infer that there was no airplane. There is no reason to doubt the witnesses who saw the plane fly over the Naval Annex. They all said it was very low as did over 100 other witnesses. Either you think they are all lying [they could not all be mistaken] or you accept that the plane did, in fact, fly over the Naval Annex and the poles were therefore staged. Asking why is just a dodge to ignore all the witnesses. It is the opposite of being objective.
The light pole in the photo above was supposedly hit by the wing of an airplane going over 500mph. It was cut in half, knocked sideways, and [they would have us believe] floated to the ground like a feather, not gouging the grass. This is not rocket surgery. The pole had lateral momentum that had to be arrested by the ground. There would be lateral gouges in the grass where the pole skidded to a stop.There are no gouges. This pole was laid there.
"seems to
have sooty residue around the edge"
Are you joking?
You are far better at finding soot than I am.
If we all followed your path
If we all followed your path we'd stop looking and be satisifed with what we have. Not gonna happen.
911 Truth Ends 911 Wars
Close up, looking down
http://911reports.com
http://www.historycommons.org
Look ma, no airplane.
Look ma, no airplane.
Pentagon- Where the No Plane Hoax started
"Look ma, no airplane."
Look ma, it's one of those nutty no planers!
Jim, are you saying that you see something
in that picture that looks like a plane? Could you show us where? All I see is what appears to be building debris and construction materials.
No Plane nonsense doesn't help
More people are on record claiming to watch a plane fly into the pentagon, than at the WTC (I'm talking Live witnesses at the scene)and more parts recovered from a 757 at the pentagon than the WTC, but you kids have fun at your no plane party.
http://911research.wtc7.net/essays/pentagontrap.html
http://911research.wtc7.net/essays/pentagon/index.html
But jim, you avoided my question
You seem to do that a lot I noticed. Bait and switch, change the subject, ad hominem attacks, straw man arguments, anything to avoid answering direct questions, I guess.
Typical No Planer
I answered your ridiculous question twice on how a lightpole could go thru a winshield and not damage a hood, but I was supposed to answer it three times? Sorry, but I don't play silly games like that. And your ridiculous question about do I see a plane in one photo is preposterous as well, when a plane crashed into a building, therefor only parts and remains would be left not a plane, and numerous parts were found which can be seen on the links provided, but they don't matter because you no planers just claim they are planted. Your silly games are a waste of time and easily noticed.
more avoidance, straw men, ad hominems, bald assertions, etc.
I answered your ridiculous question twice on how a lightpole could go thru a winshield and not damage a hood, but I was supposed to answer it three times?
You did? Wow, I guess I missed that.
EDIT: I just realized that you did a bait and switch. You answered the wrong question. The question was not "how a lightpole could go thru a winshield and not damage a hood". Rather, the question was about how a 40 foot light pole that was hit by a plane going 500+mph can crash down on a cab going 40mph towards it, with all that kinetic energy, and only contact the windshield but never the hood or top of the car, even when the car fishtales and spins to a stop perpendicular to the highway, with the pole (1/5th of the length) sticking inside the windshield, and 4/5ths of the length (most of the weight) sticking outside the windshield. Does the pole magically suspend itself in midair through all of that, defying the law of gravity?
All I could find were these "answers":
http://www.911blogger.com/node/20877#comment-214229
What is physically impossible is for a hood to be damaged when nothing hits it. The dash, windshield, and inside, were damaged consistant with the pole, or perhaps you think he did that with a hammer? No laws of gravity were defied, only logic and reason when you post on the subject.
So, your first "answer" was essentially, the hood was not damaged because nothing hit it, so therefore no laws of gravity were defied. This is what is known as circular reasoning.
http://www.911blogger.com/node/20877#comment-214268
It's already been done....
http://frustratingfraud.blogspot.com/2008/11/see-saw-analogy-moot.html
This claim of the "pole suspended in mid air" and other nonsense is simply irrational garbage you made up in order to make outrageous accusations against victims of the attacks. And your posting history shows that is why you signed up for this site a few days ago.
Your second "answer" consisted of a link to the disinformationist Adam Larson at the "Frustrating Fraud", who is about on the level of the JREFers and ScrewLooseChange as far as how transparently dishonest he is. Why even cite someone so discredited as Adam Larson? He can't even be honest enough to draw a picture that is remotely accurate with the dimensions of the pole vs the cab car:
And then you made a statement that contained an ad hominem, a straw man, and ended with a bald assertion that my posting history shows that I signed up for this site to make outrageous accusations against victims of the attacks. LOL! Are you sure you aren't a JREFer, or from 911myths.com? They would absolutely love to have you (or maybe they already do)!
Meanwhile, getting back to the original subject matter, or SUBSTANCE as Peter Dale Scott would say...
Oh, I almost forgot. You still didn't answer the question about how an elderly cab driver is capable of lifting a 250 pound light pole with only one other person - without it dragging on the hood. Still waiting...
Sorry, but I don't play silly games like that.
You seem to be the one playing games, not me.
And your ridiculous question about do I see a plane in one photo is preposterous as well, when a plane crashed into a building, therefor only parts and remains would be left not a plane
I did not imply a whole plane would be left, duh! Obviously it would be in parts. But, all I see is building debris and construction materials, but no plane parts. Do you see any plane parts in that picture? I might have to ask this a few more times, I suspect.
and numerous parts were found which can be seen on the links provided,
1) there has not been a single part positively identified as AA77 with serial numbers
2) AA77 was a 100 ton aircraft. None of those pictures, individually, or as a whole, show anything that could remotely resemble debris of a significant fraction of the 100 tons that should have been left behind, let alone a tiny fraction
but they don't matter because you no planers just claim they are planted. Your silly games are a waste of time and easily noticed.
More ad hominems, bald assertions, straw men, etc.
You might want to re-read that form letter from Peter Dale Scott again a few more times.
Keep exposing yourself
'Your second "answer" consisted of a link to the disinformationist Adam Larson at the "Frustrating Fraud", who is about on the level of the JREFers and ScrewLooseChange as far as how transparently dishonest he is."
LOL< while you speak of disinfo and dishonesty you've already been exposed lying about how the explosion Lloyd heard HAD to be the plane, you make up stories about suspended lightpoles and now you're lying about Larson. Who drew that picture again?
"Why even cite someone so discredited as Adam Larson? He can't even be honest enough to draw a picture that is remotely accurate with the dimensions of the pole vs the cab car"
Why don't you actually try and get something right for a change. It wasn't Larson that drew the Pic, it was the guy who was there and experianced it. It was the Cab driver himself. Let's see if you apologize to Larson. I suspect I will be waiting just as long for that apology as you will me answering the same questions over and over and over.....
Anyone can freeze this piece of garbage movie at the 6:27 mark and see for themselves your own heros admit this drawing is from Lloyde the Cabbie........
http://www.citizeninvestigationteam.com/videos-firstknownaccomplice.html
6:27 mark looks like a familar drawing
Facts aren't real important to you no planers is it? Now cry that I attack you as you lie about Larson and attack us both. What a joke.
But jim, you still didn't answer the questions
I don't care who drew the picture - whoever did was being blatantly dishonest. There is nothing in that ridiculous article by Adam Larson but obfuscation and nonsense.
And, you are still avoiding my questions. You can avoid, nit pick, and throw everything you want at me in place of answering the questions, but I'd say you are the one exposing yourself here, jim.
I'll put these questions that you keep refusing to answer in bold to make it even more clear what you are avoiding:
1) How can a 40 foot light pole that was hit by a plane going 500+mph crash down on a cab going 40mph towards it, with all that kinetic energy, only contact the windshield but never the hood or top of the car, even when the car fishtales and spins to a stop perpendicular to the highway, with the pole (1/5th of the length) sticking inside the windshield, and 4/5ths of the length (most of the weight) sticking outside the windshield. Does the pole magically suspend itself in midair through all of that, defying the law of gravity?
2) How can an elderly cab driver lift a 250 pound light pole out of the cab car with only one other person - without it dragging on the hood?
Better to ask just one question
Leave no wiggle room. The kinetic energy would do more than bust the windshield and put a little tear in the back seat. Add to that the damage that would be done as the cab skidded to a stop. [without leaving any skid marks]
The pole-in-cab is so obviously ridiculous it's hard to imagine how anyone could continue to believe it after a little critical analysis.
I am NOT a no planer but
there's nothing that looks like it's part of an airplane.
Screw this shit, it makes my head hurt. I going back to WTC 7. ;-)
Agreed...
...WTC7 is less of a headache!
I wish you wouldn't leave this discussion though Chris. You've been one of the few, imho, who's been interested in a level-headed discussion, along with Snowcrash and Eleusus.
Edited to add: The "no planer" label was not devised re the Pentagon. It first came to prominence re the people who promoted and who bought in to the obvious disinfo about "no planes hit the WTC." It was later conflated by some critics to include those who doubt that AA77 crashed into the Pentagon.
Please don't be afraid of being labeled something, because when you are, it forces you to suppress your discussion of what your gut intuition tells you.